There is a lot of music out there which I like, but where the offered recordings are so utterly shit that I take less joy out of the music. Especially since I know how it could sound. And there have been instances where I only noticed small details when I used good enough headphones instead of shabby speakers. All this does matter, and it's certainly not wrong to long for wrong well recorded music and a transparent playback system.

It can be argued that there exists music, notably folky songs, that don't deteriorate in musical quality as the signal quality is reduced — down until the intelligibility is lost, of course.

A guy and his guitar, playing well with fine lyrics, sounds good even at 64kbps, or even lower. If you disagree, than I personally feel you're listening to the wrong bits. You don't need $2000 equipment to feel the music, because that's not where the feeling is.

When your recording is riddled with pops, clicks and stutters, however, that is an exception. That's like being punched in the face every so often while listening.

There is a lot of music out there which I like, but where the offered recordings are so utterly shit that I take less joy out of the music. Especially since I know how it could sound. And there have been instances where I only noticed small details when I used good enough headphones instead of shabby speakers. All this does matter, and it's certainly not wrong to long for wrong well recorded music and a transparent playback system.

It can be argued that there exists music, notably folky songs, that don't deteriorate in musical quality as the signal quality is reduced — down until the intelligibility is lost, of course.

I don't see why it would be no examples of a vinyl/CD release where the vinyl master was used as a CD master (except RIAA that is supposed to be inverted anyways). The problem might be to find them, and to document that this really was the case?

Anyways, I think that the listening test problem can be solved by degrading vinyl by a CD-quality ADC/DAC stage. If CD does not degrade vinyl audibly, then there is no reason to belive that CD releases can not sound as good (or bad) as vinyl if the mastering engineer wants to. If mastering engineers wants their CDs to sound differently than their vinyl, then there may be good reasons to go for the release medium that suits your taste.

I think that the listening test problem can be solved by degrading vinyl by a CD-quality ADC/DAC stage. If CD does not degrade vinyl audibly...

I believe that's been done, and the ADC/DAC does not audibly damage the audio.

If you digitize a vinyl recording, the CD should sound identical to the original vinyl (in a blind ABX test). Of course, that assumes no noise reduction or other digital processing.

CD is technically far superior to vinyl (noise , distortion, and frequency response). Of course, that does NOT mean CD "sounds better" if you like the "warm crackle" of vinyl.

There is theoretical quality loss if you pass-through an ADC/DAC stage (or when you pass the analog signal through any active circuitry), but the quality loss shouldn't be audible. Certainly the quality loss is less than what you get with a phono preamp, since the phone preamp has to deal with very-low input signals. And of course the quality loss in the ADC/DAC process is far less than you get from the whole electrical-to-vinyl-to-electrical process.

QUOTE

...then there is no reason to belive that CD releases can not sound as good (or bad) as vinyl if the mastering engineer wants to.

I assume every professionally produced CD sounds exactly like the producer wants it to sound... Assuming he/she got a good performance from the talent.

I believe that's been done, and the ADC/DAC does not audibly damage the audio.

The debate of CD vs vinyl is still raging, may continue forever. I think that the rationalist contribution should be to advice on testing methology that lets the subjectivist (sensualist?) crowd confirm their beliefs in a somewhat scientific manner. Either that or stand on top of soap-boxes, screaming at each other.

QUOTE

If you digitize a vinyl recording, the CD should sound identical to the original vinyl (in a blind ABX test).

I believe that it will sound identical to how that vinyl sounded at that time. If the vinyl sounds audibly different from time to time, this might reveal it against a single digitized recording in an ABX test. If this variance has no trend, you might accomplish the same by digitizing it 20 times (for an ABX test of 20 trials).

If you want to have a constant dynamic range across a frequency band, then it is arguable that you need to cut the disk with constant amplitude as frequency rises. But, to play that disk back with a device that responds to velocity such as a magnetic cartridge, then you need a constant 6 dB/octave roll off.

That leaves you with RIAA minus the shelf around 1 KHz. The shelf around 1 KHz is justified by wavelength-induced difficulties cutting and tracking really high frequencies.

If you play the disk back with a device that responds to changes in position, then you don't need anything, and the resulting bump causes moderate coloration in the form of a presence rise.

Are you telling me that RIAA pre-equalization doesn't make its way onto the master used to cut an LP making it specifically different from a master that is used to create something other than an LP?

You do know about that (at least I hope you do!) or I am completely wrong in what little I know about vinyl? If I'm not wrong then I think you're making more out of my pedestrian post than what was intended.

This article seems to proudly announce that in order to cut a LP, they first make a CD and then they process the %$#!! out of it so that it is suitable for cutting LPs. In my view, they've just replaced the master tape with a CD.

...It is just kinda ironic in the face of all of the history of poorly-informed people touting the LP as sounding superior to the CD! ...

I have more than a few examples of LPs that sound better* than the CDs

...but I honestly prefer digital and know that it can faithfully reproduce sound far better than vinyl. ...so I like to digitize those records and blast them in my car and on my home stereo. I also have a few records that sound like crap and/or were poorly pressed. Only once have I gotten a defective CD and it was replaced by the record label (Metropolis.)

I like to play records sometimes but many people are just kidding themselves thinking that vinyl is more capable. My favorite record sounds incredibly good (it's a 2xLP gatefold,) but it actually sounds better to me digitized @ 16/44.1 because I fixed the clicks and stuff. CDs can be amazing. It's damned disheartening that most modern production is not doing the format justice and people like me have to go chase down the vinyl to hear a less headache-inducing version...and then digitize it so as not to wear out the vinyl or my needle.

...but yeah: if someone told me "that LP that you like so much was mastered from a CD" I would respond with "that's great! It sounds good."

*By sound better I mean they sound far more pleasing to me and I am not at all trying to be objective. Some people might actually prefer the clipped version. IDK

*By sound better I mean they sound far more pleasing to me and I am not at all trying to be objective. Some people might actually prefer the clipped version. IDK

Generally with LPs that's all it is about for me... what sounds pleasing to my ears. Others may feel differently, but they have their own ears not mine. If CDs are technically better, so what? I love collecting vinyl... I love to hold a record, touch it and look adoringly it at - and the cover too - in a silly nostalgic sort of way. If when I play an LP it happens to sound good, then I am happy. If others prefer the CD version, good luck to them. It's not about what is better, for me it is about what I like!

It's only when people claim vinyl is better because music is analog and records are analog, or that vinyl has infinite-analog resolution... That's when we go feeekin' crazy and blood starts shooting out of our eyes!

It's only when people claim vinyl is better because music is analog and records are analog, or that vinyl has infinite-analog resolution... That's when we go feeekin' crazy and blood starts shooting out of our eyes!

Some people feel that they have to justify their membership of The Cult of Vinyl, but they shouldn't really, as it is nothing to be ashamed of. I can't say what other people hear or don't hear, but I do know that in life what other people do and think shouldn't affect what you yourself like or dislike. So I like vinyl because I like it, it's a simple as that. I like some CDs too, although you can't play them backwards and hear subliminal or Satanic messages, so I don't tend to like them as much! So for me Vinyl is definitely better... for backmasking!

I like some CDs too, although you can't play them backwards and hear subliminal or Satanic messages,

You can rip them and reverse the audio.

I actually just did that last week because my daughter didn't believe me about that passage in Stairway to Heaven

...but Blueshirt; I'm with you. Vinyl is fun and cool to collect. Life is way too short to squander on being an apologist for ones own personal preferences. (BTW: If you like late-eighties metal, I recommend you check out the Back on Black (UK label) reissues. I've been very pleased with every one I got thus far. QC is far above average and they are very nicely packaged and presented. Just don't screw them up by playing them backwards!)